Corporations in Control

Is freedom present within the labor market? If so, why do people within the labor market feel unfree? Workers must be free in two senses for capitalism to work. They must be free to sell their labor power, which means they must have property rights of their own labor. Meaning an individual must be free in a sense to do whatever they want to do with their labor. Also workers must be free from the means of production. This means that people may not have access to factories, or stores that have the capital to manufacturer or produce goods or services. Because workers are free from factories, they lack what is necessary to produce commodities to sell in the market. Therefore, the only thing a free individual has to sell is his or her own labor. Due to the number of restraints on workers within the labor market, employers are given the upper hand. Companies and corporations are trying their best to disassociate the labor process with skilled labor. As the labor process becomes more dependent on skilled labor, the less control employers will have on their employees. For example, if a skilled employee wants a wage increase, then he or she is more likely to receive one because he or she is not as replaceable if he or she were an unskilled worker. This is only one particular way that corporations control their workers. Supervising employees, quotas, and routine evaluations are other ways to check up on employees and their productivity. General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world, cuts the bottom ten percent of their employees every year to ensure high returns and productivity.

Is freedom present within a capitalistic world?

What is freedom? Do you have freedom? If so, what are you free from? The definition of freedom has been historically changed over multiple centuries. Whether you were an African American during the time of slavery, or a Jew during the time of the Egyptians freedom should be universal. Hospers and libertarians say that free individuals are independent individuals. Therefore if you are independent others should not interfere with your life. I agree with this one-hundred percent, but if an individuals right to freedom places harm on another individual, then I believe that this person's melovelent behavior should be accounted for. The main point that I would like to make is if there really is freedom present within a capitalistic world? In the midst of consumerism, profit making, expansionism, etc. is there freedom? In a capitalistic world profit comes before everything. Corporations that are achieving large profits and high market share do not care about a few hundred employees that need to be layed off just to reduce costs. Thus it is capitalism that yields bad environment for workers, low wages, and poor equality. So if you were to work in a capitalistic environment would you still consider yourself to be free? I know that if I were constantly worried about my income, and whether or not I would have a job when I went back to work, I would not be able to enjoy my life, and if I did not get to enjoy my life, then I would not consider myself to be free.

Review on 'The Story of Stuff'

The first thing that crossed my mind when watching "The Story of Stuff" is that we consume too much but we waste too much as well without we even realized it. The narrator of the story, Annie Leonard revealed a system called 'Materials Economy': extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. The system is pretty much related to us. In order to make stuff, we extracting the natural resources without stopping and we don’t realize that most of the natural resources have been used up. I am concerned to what Annie Leonard said, less than 4% of original forest left in the U.S. With such a small number of trees left here, the big corporations in the U.S. come and build factories in the Third-World countries, exploit their natural resources and have the residents of the Third-World countries to work with them. If we see this from ethical issue, I could say that their rights are being violated. Annie also mentioned that the ultimate purpose of government is producing more consumer-goods. Did government think that this is a wise idea? I don’t think that it is a brilliant idea. The current total consumptions nowadays are already over-the-limit and cause too much problem to us, such as pollution. If they intended to continue that purpose, our planet might blow off. The ideas of planned and perceived obsolescence are pretty much interesting. It made me realizes that capitalism influences the production-making companies to produce stuff that can be useless as soon as possible (planned obsolescence) and convince us to throw away the stuff that are perfectly useful (perceived obsolescence). As to maintain the M-C-M' paradigm, they keep producing new stuff that are more attractive and portable, so that the new products catch the attention of the consumers and provide them more wealth. For example, the iPods. A new version of iPod is announced almost every year and it has pretty much the same functions as the old one. However, the manufacturer changes the way that iPod looks – making it more attractive in design and smaller, we, the consumers are most likely to buy the new one even though we have the old version of it. The advertisements on the television also act like catalysts to us to buy a new stuff because they make us feel wrong, unhappy, and outdated with the stuff that we have. Nevertheless, all stuff that we consumed will eventually end up to the garbage. It is undeniable that we shop non-stop. I agree too, but 99.9% of our stuff is trashed within 6 months. It does not worth right? Therefore, we should start recycling, reduce the consumption of stuff and produce efficient yet long-lasting stuff albeit it does not help much; at least we are trying to save our beloved Earth.

Capitalist Logic

Many people believe that capitalism leads to higher efficiency in all things. As is shown in Who Killed the Electric Car?, this is simply not the case. Under Capitalism, corporations have only one thing in mind: profit. In order to profit, corporations must grow. They must have cutting edge technology. But above all, they must make money. Everything they do, they do in order to make a profit. The proposed electric car from the movie was fuel efficient and long-lasting. A fuel-efficient car is not good for oil companies, which are very closely tied to car companies. A long-lasting car is not good for car companies because they sell less of them. Although the car companies would have sold very many electric cars, without planned obsolescence, they would not sell as many cars in the long run. They might be "encouraged" to stop producing those cars by oil companies. In short, by producing an electric car, they (and other corporations) would be making less money in the long run. According to capitalism, this is unacceptable. Many people in the movie were surprised and taken aback by the decision of the car companies to crush down the electric cars. They don't see why corporations would destroy such a good product. The more one examines capitalism, the more one can see the logic behind the decision the car companies made. A long-lasting, money-saving product for the consumer is simply not something corporations have incentive to make. If they made products that were good for the consumer, they would make less money and probably not make it very far in this capitalist economy. While I personally would love to have a long-lasting, fuel-efficient car, I know it is not going to be a possibility for some time. Our government will have to step in in order for it to happen. A product that makes less-than-optimal profit simply will not do for a capitalist market.

Capitalism: Do we really want it?

'Free-market capitalism' is one of the social conditions that is being implemented in the U.S. The general idea about the capitalism itself is an economic system where profit-making is more important than anything else, or to be exact, profit-making is the priority in one's company. "Capitalism, so it is said, is optimally efficient, innovative, and free" (Schweickart 87). Is his statement really true? I doubt it completely.

The meaning of capitalism can be seen vividly through Parenti's perspective that there are two different ways of living among society: those who own the wealth of society and those who work for a living (Parenti 6). Some of the latter need to open a small business for living and some of them contribute their energy to help finding fortune for their employers, not themselves. Parenti wrote, [y]ou are the member of the owning class when your income is very large and comes mostly from the labor of other people, that is, when others work for you, either in a company you own, or by creating the wealth that allows your investments to give you a handsome return. The secret to wealth is not to work hard but to have others work hard for you (Parenti 7). The points that Parenti tried to convey to his reader are very clear that not those who own the wealth that have to work hard, but people who work for them that must work hard and help them to get the fortune that they desired. From my point of view, this is very unethical as the employer is being selfish by not really doing his job but depending on his/her workers to get the benefit, as in the profit.

Capitalism has its own pros and cons. As we have discussed in class in the past two weeks, profit-making is indeed a good thing but it goes hand by hand to the destruction in the environment and the labor workers. One of the instances, capitalism leads to inequality. The workers of those who owns the wealth work harder than the owner, but actually they are being exploit in order to make money for their employer. The wages that they received are inappropriate to their contributions to the company. Pollan wrote that huge demand for corn has affected the environment. Some people might ask what is the significant of corn to capitalism. I did too. Indeed, they are related to each other. Almost 99.9% of our food contains corn as it is one of the things that contribute fortune for profit-making. However, too much corn can give detrimental effects to our body and environment. Is that what we want from capitalism?

I remember that Professor Perry once said that capitalism is a freedom in the U.S. However, if it is really a freedom, the definition of freedom according to Hospers,"[n]o one is anyone else's master, and no one is anyone else's slave" is completely deniable because the workers work too hard as if they are slaves of their employer but it do not worth them any cents at all.

Parade of Giants

I found the reading by Schweickart to be interesting as he explains his opinions on capitalism and how it affects society. He begins the article by stating that there is no preferable alternative to capitalism that is as efficient in allocation of existing resources, as dynamic in innovative growth, or as compatible with liberty and democracy. At first he gives you the idea that he is a supporter of capitalism, until he introduces his six major negatives about capitalism. The first problem which seemed to be a big one was inequality. He explains that the balance of income and wealth are so unreasonable unbalanced that the top one percent of the richest people in the US own almost 50 percent of the nations wealth. He does an incredible job drawing a picture of this by talking about the parade of giants. The giants are the richest people who stand at tens of thousands of miles tall, while the poorest people (in the front of the parade) stand at under a foot tall. I did not know the magnitude of the desperately poor people in the country. Yet I do not know if this is all because of capitalism. I feel that the author contradicts himself at times. He states that the rich are removing legal barriers to equality making poverty unbearable. But he also speaks of the importance unemployment is to capitalism. He says that capitalism cannot be a full employment economy. If employment drops too low then wage demands are made and this essentially cuts into profits. He then tries to justify the illegal crimes committed in this country by the people who suffer from poverty, saying that they have no other choices but to turn to gangs, drugs, alcohol and crime. I did not agree that we can just blame all of our problems in this country on capitalism and its apparent inequality. I found much of the article interesting, but I constantly found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the author.

Don't Put All Your Eggs In One Basket: Corn

As is made evident in the excerpt from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, the United States is very much dependant on corn to keep our economy going. Corn feeds our families both by being consumed in its natural form or by being converted into almost every food imaginable. Corn feeds our livestock so that we can get fat, juicy burgers in half the time it would take if one let nature take its course. Corn can easily be converted into high fructose corn syrup, a staple ingredient in practically anything that tastes sweet. Corn also provides this country with jobs. Corn needs people to farm it, cultivate it, process it, transport it, sell it, advertise it, lobby for it, etc. Corn doesn’t just give, however: the production of this much corn does not come without cost. Corn and its cultivation require the use of fossil fuels in order to keep the soil rich in nitrogen. Corn demands the use of fossil fuels to transport it and to convert into various corn-related synthetics. Corn makes a real mess, too: it significantly alters the environment and can seriously alter the food chain. We put a lot into Corn, and Corn gives back. It’s a great system. As much as 25% of the items one find in a supermarket can be traced back to corn. However, that leads to a dangerous question: what if some kind of superbug evolved that specialized in eating up our corn? What if there were to be a repeat of the infamous Irish Potato Famine, but this time with corn? How would we survive? Would be survive? Is our country sophisticated enough to prevent the creation of such potentially deadly diseases? Is our country sophisticated enough to prevent the spread of such a disease if one were to come into being?

The Story of Stuff -a review

Annie Leonard's "The Story of Stuff" discussed about a linear system, which involves extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. "The Story of Stuff" make me think about how easy it is for many of us to toss away our stuff even if it is still in good condition, and it is easy to get ourselves a new one without being aware of where do all our stuff go after that.

Recalling from our discussion in previous classes, about rights, it makes me sick to think of how big corporations take lands from the people of Third World countries. They build their factories there, harvest the natural resources and the people who live there have no other choice but to work for them. These people have their rights being violated.

The world of capitalism we lived in, force us to buy stuff. She did mentioned fashion and advertisements that somehow tell us that whatever we have now is not enough and we should buy more and more stuff. For the most of this part I agree with her. But when she mentioned perceived obsolescence, and compared the flat screen monitor with the big, cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor, I have trouble to agree with the way she represent the idea. Isn't the flat screen monitor a better innovation than the latter? It takes less space, and much lighter. Furthermore, a flat screen monitor uses LESS energy than a CRT.

We have "a system in crisis", according to "The Story of Stuff". But, it is wrong to say that "it's just not working" since this system has benefited a lot of us. If it is not because of this system, you will never have met the Internet. "A system that doesn’t waste resources or people, sustainability, equity, renewable, local living economy…” as suggested by her may be possible to achieved. But that is not the question. The question is, whether the government and the corporations that played the most important roles in this system are ready to give up the profit-making paradigm that has been their purpose of existence nowadays. Remember, in this capitalist world, if a corporation does not make profit, it will disappear.

Corn and Capitalism

It was discussed in the reading and in class today how the crop that we have kept alive for so many years (corn) is not just a form of agriculture that we like to eat. The author explains the evolution of corn and why it is so important to society. I seemed to observe some very interesting links among the topics discussed in the reading and how this simple crop is very much a catalyst for profit making and is the key ingredient to capiltalism. Just look around the super market. The supermarket is full of inventory that is solely there because somebody is trying to make a profit off of it. Almost everything you see in the store can be linked to corn somehow. many of the food contains corn syrup or corn flour. Many of the foods in the store are made up of animals that once ate corn. Take a walk over to the deli section. There is a plethora of meats, all different kind of animals. Most of these animals grew up on similar farms and were served similar corn feed everyday. The author talks about the relationship between the steer and corn. As I just said the steer eats corn. And as most of us know the steer's main purpose is to one day be a beutiful slice of medium rare steak presented to us at a nice five star restaurant. So the steer eats the corn and is then sent away to the slaughter house. The meat and poultry industry is a huge profit making industry and once again we trace it back to corn. One fifth of our petroleum consumption in the US is used just to ship our food. This same adventure that we followed corn on through the meat market can be done with many other products in the supermarket as well, proving that corn is quite a smart species to create this partnership with humans and become such an importance piece to so many capitalists profit making strategies.

Argument on minimal government concept

Some libertarians argue that, from a moral standpoint, if actions of an ordinary thief are wrong, then the actions of a government who taxes certain people in order to support others are wrong too. I disagree with their argument because at some point, corporations and wealthy people are doing harm to others and the environment. Many corporations harvest natural resources and pollute the environment, and therefore they are responsible to give something back to the community. Taxes are one of the ways.

Hospers did mention that people will never go hungry: "with the restrictions removed, the economy would flourish as never before" (pg 326). Yet is it always true that with the restrictions removed, more and more consumers needs, will be satisfied by the expansion of existing business and establishment of new business? Is it always true that the employment rate will increase? Is it always the case, as I think that those who control the business will gain much more profit, and they will not think about assisting the needy (unless it will lead to even more profit) and thus the poor will be even poorer.

In class, we discussed about how government plays an important role to supervise companies' operation. There should be regulations and laws enforced by the government so that these companies will keep producing goods and services that are up to standard. In the social condition of minimal government interference as suggested by Hospers, big companies that have achieved monopoly in the business will start producing products that will not last long just for profit. Consumers are forced to buy these products and eventually, they will be dissatisfied because the products are not worth the money they spent.

Red Team Ethics/ Politics/Economics

If you assume that every person on the face of the earth is in fact intrinsically good do you think that people would live a just and good life without a political system? Depending on which theory you support whether that is relativism, consequentialism, egoism, or utilitarianism your theory pertaining to a just and good world without a political system might differ from mine. It is a common understanding that rights come from nature, that they have a “natural foundation”. Meaning that from the moment you are born, you have the right to live, and there is not one person that has the right to take that from you. So a right is attached to a person and it can not be taken away. This might be true, but what if someone said they had the right to steal from you? How could you argue what that person’s rights are without looking toward something concrete, like the US Constitution. Hull says that rights that come from political communities would be non existent if they were not protected by the legal and political system. Therefore human rights are only given meaning by the “documents and discussions in which they emerge.” I see Hull’s perspective on rights to support my statement that people would not live a just and good life without the presence of a political system.